Quote note (#286)

The Guardian goes Alt-Right:

Those still in work might be less grumpy about funding a more generous welfare state if beneficiaries are deemed to be enough like them: fellow tribesmen, people of similar background and therefore felt to be deserving of charity.

It’s the Sweden attractor at work. (“Sure, fascism isn’t great, but if that’s what’s needed to protect the welfare state …”)

September 27, 2016admin 20 Comments »


20 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    All is part and parcel of Leftism. For Leftists, ideology is all that matters, and everything else — and everyone else — is a means to that end. If jobs go away, there has to be some new way of keeping the circular socialist Ponzi scheme alive. I hear there is good work as a prison guard at the dissident’s camp, Comrades!


    Nicean Necropolitical Attractor Reply:

    Yes, well seen — that is what happens when Commies go Nazbol.


    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    But then again, white aristocracies employed slavery. So haven´t whites traditionally been “nazbol” plus transcendent mytho-numinous consciousness?

    How about we synthesize Transcendent Capitalism and the best of pre-Capitalist Aryan nations?

    We can call it Rome (Imperium) 3.0

    In any case whites need to de-bourgeoisify themselves, and form street gangs. Or get blown. For the wind blows where it wills.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 2:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ur-mail Says:

    The wheels are beginning to fall off the “just suck it up and sublimate your tribalism” train. The article basically ends, like so many Leftist articles, with a moral appeal to the faithful to ramp up their piety in the coming years – there are no other tools remaining for the Left here but vague promises to “try to sublimate harder”.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:


    And in light of that:



    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    A comment on the above, Owen Jones said something like “we” should tie immigration with “economic benefits”. Translation: take X or starve.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 3:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    No Chaos Patch to dump links but I thought this might interest you, Nick:

    Secessionist dreamin’ state, cities,urbanism, (all co-written by the guy who brought us the Molbuggian ‘New Class Conflict’).



    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    they are truly lost, gee.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 5:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    “Preparing for a world without work means grappling with the roles work plays in society, and finding potential substitutes.” – Guardian.

    History has an answer: War.

    It just happens. When Whites are as out of work as Browns then it will be War instead of Street gangs as we are competent and they are not.

    There’s another answer: colonization of new lands or in our case new worlds, building new worlds starting with space stations that become cities. Space colonization or War. The Human race soars to infinite heights or goes down into another Dark Age with nukes.

    The interim answer is already present: increased security and police everywhere to police the idle and their crimes. As men without work get into drinking, drugs vice crime and policing increase. That’s not the future that’s now. If you want to see the Guardian’s future look at the projects, the Estates, the Favela.


    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    We need Transcendental Space Communism for whites.

    Btw. i notice NL has added a new resouce: http://xynchroni.city/


    Kek accurately gets you 9=A CYCLE OF DEATH AND REBIRTH

    Which brings us to P.E.P.E. — Shadilay:

    cosmic absolute, regular reality
    breath of a image/concept, syntony of civilizations
    confused descendants of rebel cells
    I fly towards the universe, I’ll pass through it
    if you are a star, show yourself, I will stop
    oooh oooh

    If that isn´t sumkind of Cosmism.


    Our future is to see us with a great past (Ægypt and beyond) and a great futur (Mars and beyond).

    As for war. There is no war without gangs. The unit in a war is a trooper, and then his gang. Call it some other name. We´re talking about the essential male group. ▬{ from Old English gang “a going, journey, way, passage,” and Old Norse gangr “a group of men, a set,” both from Proto-Germanic *gangaz (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Danish, Dutch, Old High German, German gang, Old Norse gangr, Gothic gagg “act of going”), from PIE root *ghengh- “to step” (source also of Sanskrit jangha “shank,” Avestan zanga- “ankle,” Lithuanian zengiu “I stride”). Thus not considered to be related to go. }

    Icelandic ganga is ‘walking’. Gengi is ‘gang’. Gengi is also ‘currency’ or ‘state of currency’ actually. Gengur is ‘works’.

    ▬{ In India, the game of chess was known as planetary battle, while in 16th century Europe, it was still known as Celestial War, or Astrologer’s Game. And just as the battle of Ragnarök transpired, astrally, on the death road of the Milky Way, in Chinese versions of chess, the two opposing sides of the game board were divided by the picture of the Milky Way. An association of the fate of the gods with a game of chance is found in India, where the Rig Veda says that the gods go round like ayas, the casts of the dice. The dice were called urata, meaning an organised gang, under the rulership of a king; this king was Rudra, a prototype of the destroyer god Shiva. In a similar way, yuga, the name given to the four Indian world ages, was derived from the idiom of dicing. }
    Incidentally, a Twitter mate made a pond caste: Beyond #EsotericKekism: #Neo-Atlantian Kekism?

    The die is cast.

    This shit is dangerous and moving.


    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    By ‘communism’ I´m trying to appeal to the more distributionist of us. The medieval monastic orders were a successful communism, so to speak. Lots of proto-science got done there. Not everyone can be an anarch.

    Since we´re not completely Libertarian autists, we know that Centrism reals.

    The monastic orders and the theologians were the meme-producing NEET class of the previous Roman empires. Academia derives from Catholic academia. « Founded in 1209, Cambridge is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world’s fourth-oldest surviving university. The university grew out of an association of scholars who left the University of Oxford after a dispute with the townspeople. The two ancient universities share many common features and are often referred to jointly as “Oxbridge”. The word university is derived from the Latin: universitas magistrorum et scholarium, which approximately means “community of teachers and scholars”. The term was coined by the Italian University of Bologna, which, with a traditional founding date of 1088, is considered to be the first university. The origin of many medieval universities can be traced back to the Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools, which appeared as early as the 6th century and were run for hundreds of years as such before their formal establishment as universities in the high medieval period.

    From the early modern period onwards, the university gradually spread from the medieval Latin West across the globe, eventually replacing all other higher-learning institutions and becoming the preeminent institution for higher education everywhere. This process occurred in the following chronological order:

    ▬ Western Europe (from the 11th or 12th century)
    ▬ Central and Eastern Europe (from the 14th or 15th century)
    ▬ Americas (from the 16th century)
    ▬ Australia (from the 19th century)
    ▬ Asia and Africa (from the 19th or 20th century), with the exception of the Philippines, where the University of Santo Tomas was established in the 17th century. »

    Call me an Atlancist Eurasianist Globalist, but I wish we could really all just work together to get off this rock.


    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    Some Americans who should know better (e.g. former William E. Odom) considered the USA to be “ahead” in “most fields” of the “technology base” but of course those “areas” so classified are all the direct consequence of just one narrow area that the USA was ahead in – i.e., mass produced microelectronics and so increased transistor density – this (and not the design of other aspects of machines, or materials fabricated) is exactly what directly leads to the higher clockspeed of computers, signal processing capabilities, avionics, and stuff like adaptive optics (microcomputers are also directly applied in NC machine tools in industry). Soviets made up for this one area by a much broader spectrum of high technology (what this means will be made apparent later).

    The meaningful areas of “high technology” all reduce to:

    * the design and assembly of a complicated system (like computer architectures, mechatronic systems, software, automatic control systems)

    * the capacity of “precision” machining of high-end devices (e.g. ball bearings in inertial guidance systems, in both ICBMs and aircraft) which depends, in turn, on increased metrological measurement techniques (sometimes, the very large size of something requires new tooling techniques – e.g. the F-1 engine on the Saturn V rocket was scaled up, so they had to design this contraption to smooth out edges of the welding – these are relatively very simple however and so they fall under “systems engineering”)

    * the capacity to fabricate all kinds of very “high-tech” materials and components, which ultimately reduce to controlling or “stabilizing” some phenomena (like impurities in silicon), this also covers the surface engineering, tribological and materials science knowledge for producing titanium, composite materials, optical components and engineering of thin films (“surface engineering” is why mechanical components in, e.g., your car last longer – these improvements also used in robotic space probes)

    Soviets were far, far (decades) ahead, in the sense of making more fundamental advances in much more high technology “areas” that have little mutual relation to a common device, and these capabilities alone utterly dwarf what American technology and industry is capable of even now (or will be in the far future). In terms of the design of complicated systems for which it is actually a “problem” to design (the first category above), they were actually infinitely ahead, e.g. Soviet mainframe and on-board computers for purposes of fire control and flight navigation (like the neural net computer on the spaceship “Buran”) used so many fantastically ingenious algorithms to make up for the one lag in transistor density used, that it was incredible. Often systems were designed with the goal of maximizing reliability with unreliable components (this was a problem of inherent interest, studed by von Neumann in the USA). In aerodynamics and aerohydrodynamics, in supercomputer architectures and the design of automatic control systems… it would be futile to attempt to enumerate all of those areas.

    And not only were they able to fabricate and produce prototypes in the scale of the laboratory or machine shop (with manual soldering, welding, tooling and special machining for “precision” components – btw this is how equipment in the space program is produced as well as other machines that have short production runs), but they could produce it via fully automated robotic production plants, that achieved fantastic results in the energy conservation. A small number of Soviet production plants produced much more main battle tanks, atomic and diesel submarines, aircraft, ICBMs, strategic reserves and components, etc. than the rest of the world combined.

    BTW – even in microelectronics components, it was always acknowledged (e.g. by civilian analysts in RAND Corporation) that Soviets could always batch produce small quantities of the very best microelectronics, since their expertise (in physics, chemistry, materials science) was higher. It was just a question of perfecting the mass production of it (the particular kind of precision tooling, clean rooms, quality control practices) to such a degree of uniformity so as to mass produce it cheaply – that was something American industry perfected in the period from WWII to the Apollo program. Also, due to economic problems Soviets did not build enough production plants for microelectronics, so there was a production bottleneck on top of it. But the “technology” was in fact developed (just that actual components were in short supply).

    The CIA (that could tap into undersea cables) and American reconaissance satellites (that can intercept telemetric data) knew this, since they picked up absolutely incredible capabilities e.g. American passive sonar picked up a Soviet combat submarine that could dive to 3000 feet (due to gigantic advances in high-strenth titanium hulls and other metallurgical technologies). This is due to engineered technology (some advances of which are important enough to be called new “technologies”, even), and not “systems engineering” or whatever Americans mostly did in the 60s space program (see the book linked to above, “The Secret of Apollo”). Due to advances in a gigantic range of component technologies related to photonic systems and optoelectronics, Soviet ocean reconaissance, synthetic aperture radar and all kinds of weapons platforms have remote sensing and optical tracking capabilities that are completely beyond anything the USA has in development even now (some of these components, like spatial light modulators were examined in the research laboratories – IIRC, including Lawrence Livermore – after the Soviet collapse, and an attempt to “copy” them failed). A big chunk of the vast spectrum of “high technologies” could be directly inferred from relatively few data points like this – and not relatively opaque stuff like how the MiG-21 performed in dogfighting (the operational performance of a “weapons platform” in direct fighting and such is usually just based on design trade-offs in the later stages, like like the T-34 was “superior” in WW2 but actually low-tech, since the components were inferior).

    Of course, military technology (land, air and ocean vehicles, large military installations like ground-based radar and sensors, and large computer mainframes running highly customized software) use the widest spectrum of high technologies, since here any kind of “high” technology (that systematically controls some phenomena) finds an application. That includes every kind of advance in materials science, computing or “remote sensing”, etc. Every single major technological “breakthrough” was a result of all of these lines converging together (e.g. in WWII).

    Similarly American high technology was mostly developed by Bell Labs (downsized in the 80s), that had to maintain something very large and complicated (the telecommunications system, that included satellites).

    Update: To expand on what I said:

    * The conventional wisdom is that Soviets were “behind in consumer technology but possibly ahead in military (and space) technology.” This is true insofar as what is asserted is the quality of the final product that actually circulates in the economy, measured by specific criteria. But of course, “military” and space technology refers to machines that are much bigger, and that are much more complex in terms of design and production technology: Mir space station is much more significant than coke cans or plastic bottles. This is the distinction between “high” technology that requires solving complicated engineering problems of system design and production technology, as opposed to simply improving the capacity to mass produce something a bit better by tinkering. Much of the time, most of the technological challenges lie in not merely producing prototypes of something, but mass-producing something industrially (and so ironing out irregularities or non-uniformities, such as in producing microelectronics with clean rooms).

    If one has a higher engineering base for developing something, this is as important or just as important as actually *having* a qualitative lead in such a product (this second fact can be true without the first): for example, France and Japan could have sent humans into orbit far before China did, even though the first two countries decided not to. By 1989 Soviets had the “Energia” launcher that was fully re-usable, the most powerful rocket in history (in terms of lift-off thrust), and capable of a manned mission to the moon or to Mars.

    The more important distinction is not “consumer” vs. military but “large” devices and installations, and the kind that is portable and hand-held. Consumer products would consist of miniaturized devices that use low power consumption (preferably batteries). They also (like military products) use surface engineering and finishing techniques, and electronics.

    * It is also safe to say that the vast majority of high technology is not used in consumer devices and never will be. For example, optical computing and supercomputing networks will always be fairly large (the larger the more performance), and the best computers are used by institutions. The future of high-performance computing is optical computers, like the one being developed by Optalysis in the UK (highly recommended link). Soviets led in optical processing technology and optoelectronics — but more on this later.

    Another part of “high” technology is infrastructure technology for command, control and communications. This again uses much higher technology than consumer products — consider fiber optic cables again, and the difficulties of laying them (most countries cannot do this). Also consider the air traffic radars that make routine flights possible. Also, the internet and telecom networks, GPS, etc. depend on an entire communications infrastructure from the space satellites to the undersea cables.

    Energy technology is much more advanced, whether nuclear power plants or other means, and this goes especially for portable energy generation devices like the Pamir-3U. Mini power plants are essential for transportation technology.

    Transportation technology (including space technology) is also much more advanced than civilian goods. That includes transportation to the ocean depths and to outer space. Sustained thermonuclear fusion (based on the Soviet tokamak invention) is more technically difficult than nuclear weapons. One day it will be necessary to extract natural resources from outer space, and much of the difficulties even of extraction on Earth is based on transportation. Virtually all transportation technology benefits from high-quality materials that increase durability and reliability of travel, and Soviets previously led in carbon-fibre and carbon-boron composites (see the Springer series in “Soviet Advanced Composites Technology Series”, e. by Fridlyander and Marshall).

    Scientific instruments like particle accelerators and other high-energy devices use higher technology than consumer products. An example are the Beryllium mirrors that Russia provided in the CERN Large Hadron Collider.

    Extractive technology is arguably more complex than space technology if you are working in Russia, in permafrost conditions. The American project “Azorian”, of salvaging a Soviet nuclear submarine, had quite similar difficulties.

    Agriculture and biotechnology including GMO crops use a wide range of synthetic fertilizers and biotechnology.

    Of course, there is production technology for high-performance components, like composite materials and titanium and aluminum alloys for aircraft. These require accumulating materials science and metallurgical expertise, e.g. the increase range of a main battle tank would be based upon all of these and more.

    It is a quite settled fact that most big American innovations of the past century (from Shannon’s information theory, to Shockley and Bardeen) were made possible by AT&T Bell Laboratories, which was at its height from the 1940s-60s. (See the multi-volume A History of Science and Engineering in the Bell System.) Bell Labs invented the transistor (the single most important invention of the post-war era), the laser/maser (co-invented with the Soviets) and even the metal oxide semiconductor (this is less well known, but yes, the MOS was actually invented as a product of wartime research). Bell Labs also did some early work on optical computing and all sorts of “hybrid” devices (before the 1970s, when Soviets completely came to dominate the field).

    Since the Bell system was decapitated in the 70s-80s, the USA has “invented” nothing comparable. No interesting mechanisms (like the advances in WWII electro-mechanical fire control systems, servomechanisms and automatic control), no fundamentally new devices, no really new materials, etc. The USA decided to just completely exploit an existing area (microelectronics – in one of those rare situations in which tiny advances in one narrow area automatically lead to “revolutionary” capabilities elsewhere (towards lower weight and power consumption) just because they are all related to a common device, the transistor) until now when semiconductors have reached a physical dead end, and on the other hand import Japanese machine tools for producing its own military equipment (e.g., atomic submarines). Soviets were ahead in: the automatic docking of spacecraft, virtually all parts of robotics and electro-mechanical (as opposed to purely solid state electronic) systems, hybrid computers instead of purely digital computers, photodetectors (lead-salt detectors used in military and IRST systems) used in homing devices, portable power plants (like the Pamir-3U device). Fundamentally new device schemes and even whole parts of fundamental science close to technology – nonlinear optics, “chaos in dynamical systems”, sustained thermonuclear fusion (the tokamak fusion trap), and ion (Hall effect) electrostatic thrusters (that are still the key to deep space propulsion), the “synchrotron” method of particle acceleration, were invented by Soviets.

    That is to say: the United States altered the nature of its technology base around the 1970s. Instead of expanding on a very broad front as in WWII, it relied on a single technology (that of microelectronics) with the belief that this is the most important part of the “technology base”. This it true in some ways: as documented by Cortada and Forester, it is the most important base for increasing the economic effectiveness of ordinary (not high-performance) products, and so the most important base for boosting the economy as a whole. It improves the vast majority of the products that circulate in the economy. Production processes get far quicker and more efficient, energy consumption is reduced, etc. It is also crucial for discovering oil prospects (which depends heavily on microelectronics and general information processing) — this is why Russia still inherits this dependence on Exxon (but also why it has no good reasons for continuing to do so).

    It is not the most important “basis” for the production of high-performance end products, nor for the cost-efficiency of manufacturing them, which depend on materials expertise among other things. It will also eventually lead to a dead end because (due to the fundamental physics) the microelectronics will simply vaporize when they get to a certain level of miniaturization — this fact is also noted by all experts.

    Ironically Bell Labs was far more “socialist” (in the sense of being top-down and centralized) than the Soviets were. In the book “Mission Communications”, it is revealed that pretty much every major American “technological advance” involving new fundamental device schemes and control over some new phenomena originated in Bell Labs (even the microwave magnetron). Bell also invented “systems engineering”, that was later used in the Apollo program.

    BTW, we should clear up some confusions that people have about “technology”:

    * First, there is no such thing as “military technology” in the literal sense. Military equipment, if you disassemble it, splits up into various automatic control systems (I guess you can think of the simpler ones as “steering” systems), propulsion systems, computers, hydraulic and cooling systems, avionics, power plants, lasers, gyroscopes, etc. Those in turn are made up of any kind of alloy, plastic, fiberglass, etc. you can imagine. All of those are… general purpose technologies. The technology for mass producing them is in most cases very similar to “civilian” technology (compare mass production of military vechiles and civilian cars). “Military” equipment is characterized by (1) using the widest range of high technology, since anything that controls any effect might be useful for purposes of remote sensing, electronic warfare etc. (computers, lasers were useful militarily before industrial applications and so on were apparent), they are highly modular and so the broadest range of different devices can be easily integrated into a single weapons platform, by replacing one part of the chassis. Soviet systems were especially modular. They are free to use very highly customized software/hardware, they don’t have to conform to any “standards” like consumer goods (like software) do.

    * Consumer goods don’t use any high technology. Period. The basic components are just spinoffs from what is used in military and space machinery (mass produced ICs were originally developed for space satellites and the Apollo program). Civilian infastructure – telecommunications satellites (the second form of over-the-horizon communications after reflection from the ionosphere), fiber optic cables, gas pipelines, information networks use high technology, but that’s the same thing as military infastructure for command and control. In fact the “internet” and ARPANET was first developed for the military, to survive a nuclear strike. The Soviet military and KGB had its own communications network, its own portion of the Molniya and lower geosynchronous satellites that was separate from the (completely ass-backwards, still widely using the telegraph (!!) by the early 80s) civilian telecom – Soviet civilian telecom was a gigantic mess, even though they were beginning to adopt their civilian “internet” system by the 80s. BTW, a study was made of various Soviet telecom satellites after perestroika, and even the lower-end ones had the immediate technical capability to broadcast at comparable bandwidth to satellites produced by Motorola (though using completely different design principles) – Sovs simply decided not to, for whatever reason.

    * Do not say stuff like “X invented the first cruise missile” (w00t, a new “military technology”!). Among other things, this confuses a significant kind of new capability, with a very general kind of capability (almost uselessly general), like the “cruise missile”. It’s completely irrelevant where you draw the line exactly at what is the first “cruise missile” (and the Nazi V-1 can even be called a kind of cruise missile ) – this is like saying the ancient Chinese had the first “rockets”. Obviously, introducting the first missile with cruise-type capability is not somehow more important than the later big developments in terms of propulsion, automatic control etc. – that constitutes the “technological” substance of it. Soviets had the first H-bomb in the literal sense, the USA had the first “true” hydrogen (fission-fusion-fission) bomb, the Soviets had the first “true” space station (Salyut 6, powered by internal engines, etc.).

    * The above, btw, is part of the wider fallacy of defining a new “technology” by just any superficial, easily observable criterion – e.g. whether there is a new “capability” or even a new device “configuration”. The point is, every generation of machines involves lots of “new stuff – only 1% of it is important enough to count as a technical advance, let alone new “technology”. If you look at the development projects for the Titan II, or Apollo program… most of it is just “systems engineering”. That consists of design solutions that are purely opportunistic and don’t add to the stock of available tools (technology). The following excerpt shows how this confusion is still abused by those who play fast and loose with what they mean by “technology”:

    One myth we can dispense with is that the technology of Apollo is now so old-fashioned it can safely be consigned to the shelves of museums. On the contrary, a good deal of it still hasn’t been matched. For instance, in later 2007 a team of NASA engineers designing new hardware for a new moonshot, planned for the coming decade, removed a panel from an old Apollo capsule on display in Washington DC’s Air and Space Museum, and took a look inside the maze of wiring and pipework. They wanted the answer to a problem that had beaten the best minds in modern space engineering.

    At the end of a mission, and just prior to re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere, a crew capsule must separate cleanly from the equipment module that has contained most of its air, water, electrical power supplies, and rocket fuel. How is this to be done reliably, and in a fraction of a second? Dozens of power wires, data cables, and fluid conduits have to be disconnected in an instant, not to mention the three or four heavy attachment bolts that have held the capsule snug against the equipment module during the mission. The NASA team discovered inside the Apollo a tiny set of explosive guillotines, through which all the cables and lines snaked in a neat bundle. When the time came for the capsule to drop away, the guillotines sliced through metal and plastic as though they were butter. A backup set of guillotines, powered by a different electrical circuits, insured against failure – and all in a box the size of a car battery. Forty years later, Apollo still had lessons to teach.
    –from the book “One Giant Leap: Apollo 11 Remembered”

    (BTW, notice how the above passage reveals that NASA lost the technical schematics for the various Apollo 11 hardware, that were developed by subcontractors.) Notice how simple the design decisions were for the Apollo equipment – they were just contraptions. It was primarily interdisciplinary (putting together exports in electronics, propulsion, instrumentation, hydraulics etc. together) and an achievement of management rather than technology – it really involved no new fundamental “technology” except for microelectronics, and some new materials. (This is explained further in the book, “The Secret of Apollo”.) Compare that with the gigantic advances made in WWII radar, servomechanism design etc., or the Soviet creation of “Ekranoplan” ground effect aircraft, that involve building up a vast body of knowledge, figuring out completely new schemes, and mathematical formulations:


    The Soviet government’s effectiveness in space activities can, in general, be attributed to the fact that while our private sector was more effective than the Soviet public sector, our public sector was less effective than the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you consider that the Soviet public sector had no private sector to tax — any costs were born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.

    It was a simple matter of accountability. The US private sector was most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system was next most accountable for its costs and the US government was least accountable for its costs.

    Private industry is more “efficient” at what it does – which is to provide a very flexible range of products (and small scale technologies) for rapidly shifting demands of the consumer market. Coca-Cola and tampons can be considered “technologies”, under that equivocation. Except it has and never had (since the 20th century, with the huge increase in size/complexity) anything to do with fundamental technology – i.e., fundamental control of phenomena, that all other technologies depend on. (For example, the technology of “CDs” and how they are actually read is mostly a direct byproduct of… lasers (invented by Bell Labs and also the Soviets). Lasers could never be invented by “private industry”.)

    Private industry can’t do any of this in principle – it’s not a matter of being “more efficient”. The entire point of government produced stuff is that it is large scale – lots of things have to be developed in parallel. It’s completely implausible that we would have space travel (and therefore satellite communications) without Sputnik and the cold war. Do you know how many test failures and billions of dollars had to be spent, for how many decades, before the first ballistic missile let alone space launch vehicle were developed? (Rocketry is one of those areas where mathematical modelling does relatively little due to all of the nonlinearities, so one has to expend lots and lots of money on the testing of prototypes.) There would be no reason why any private corporation would even want to do that, for anyone in actual touch with reality. No rockets => no satellites => no microelectronics or modern communications. Bell Labs (that the government set up as a monopoly) and so on have nothing to do with “private enterprise” – it was all in-house research and development. The same thing with WWII work on radar, control systems, atomic energy, etc. For the Apollo program there were contractors, but all the large-scale work and new “technologies” (like the transisor) were created by in-house research.

    (On the other hand, quality consumer goods was something Soviets could never provide, no matter now technologically advanced they ever get, since that always depends on fine-tuning in the later stages of product design. It was not possible due to lack of incentives and institutional rigidity (a couple of gigantic, frozen segments of military firms that “produced” civilian washing machines .. from leftover and thrown out parts). Of course, advances in computing would reduce some of the difficulties, but it is not as straightforward as is sometimes implied (by e.g., Cockshott and Cottrell in their book).

    Every new fundamental technology – every part of the technological “base” – was a result of large-scale government work, for military purposes:



    Now as for why the Soviet military/space sector was successful, it’s much more complicated than that – experience proves that people can only be forced to develop new “technologies” by necessity (more on this below). Engineers on the whole tend to just solve an immediate problem and move on.

    In the Soviet case… there were plenty of irrationalities. E.g., there was an incentive in favor of producing good prototypes and showing them to the government, since that would get you “perks”, but to introduce the mass production of anything poses problems. American scientists (like Thomas C. Reed) report visiting the Soviet “Naukograds” after 1991 and seeing “technological wonders” and so on, but which were of the type of product produced on a small scale, in the machine shop setting (as I have said in the link) rather than for mass production. The puzzle is how a system that should not work in principle, in fact worked very well (or even worked at all).

    The “puzzle” immediately dissolves if you see what the engineers had to do. That is, they (Soviets) had to produce military equipment that was competitive in terms of operational capability, and yet they had to work with very low transistor density, unlike in the American case. It was exactly this lag in a single area of importance, that encouraged them to expand in “breadth”, leading to the achievements elsewhere.

    On the other hand, the worst thing that ever happened to Soviets was Sputnik, and being ahead in the heavy lift capability since the 1960s. As you could see in the chart, Soviets always had a much stronger heavy lift capability (due to efficiency of liquid fueld rocket engines). This completely aborted their incentive/effort to develop mass produced microelectronics (as opposed to producing them in the small scale, without such standards of reliability that are needed for mass production), and the USA zoomed way ahead in the 1960s in this area. The USA developed solid state electronics (eventually, microelectronics) initially because it needed miniaturization for its telecommunications satellites – and that was precisely because it was behind in heavy lift vehicles (and so satellites had to be lighter) since American rocket engines were always less efficient in the relevant parameters. Sputnik was the best thing that ever happened to the USA – it created the American space program (and therefore microelectronics), it created telecommunications satellites, etc.

    The lesson is clear – in order to make progress, you need to be backward in some existing area, and “make up” for it. (Germans did this with rocketry after WWII, because of the bans on other kinds of equipment.)


    John Hannon Reply:

    The projects and estates without work are rubbish places because rubbish people live there, whereas masses of not so rubbish people without work will hopefully behave a little better.

    As for space colonization, a world without work would also give everyone time for inner-space exploration, such that people en masse could discover that we’re not the separate selves we think we are, and we could all live peacefully ever after.
    Until the robots kill us.



    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    Outer space is where we get together
    And this place we’re meant to be
    Stars are dancing and the time is fading
    Dead forever, you and me, you and me

    Racing stars and common moons are planets
    In the Cosmos, we are free
    There’s no atmosphere and no obsessions
    It’ll always be, it’ll always be

    Our home forever is, outer space
    Black stars and endless seas, outer space
    New hope, new destinies, outer space
    Forever we’ll be in outer space, outer space



    John Hannon Reply:

    Niggers already be out there –


    Nicean Necropolitical Reply:

    They sure are: >They sure are: GNFOS

    And Space Jews too.

    Btw. I had one helluva time last night watching AT&T Archives: A 20-year History of Antiballistic Missile Systems. Watching an arms race video stoned is deeply enlightening.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 11:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles Invictvs Says:

    You might like this Nick: https://www.amazon.com/Social-Acceleration-Modernity-Directions-Critical/dp/0231148356


    Posted on September 28th, 2016 at 11:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Nicean Necropolitical Says:

    vandermok@adsllight Sep 21 3:26 PM

    Hitler said: maybe a communist could be a Nazi, a bourgeois never. So, the apparent convergence between extreme Left and Right Wings is due to the uneasiness in front of the actual bourgeois and anti-traditional values alarming all social classes, but every political struggle is in vain if not based on the true knowledge and perspective of the occult situation.
    After all, Dugin is just saying to us: Evola speaks well, but Dostojevskij & Co. said it before.

    Evola stated, about the modern radical movements: “Therefore it’s as significant as it’s natural that in such movements of today Nietzsche be absolutely ignored, while he has been the first and greater rebel. In the human matter there is no correspondence; the true elective affinities – plebeian – of those movements reveal themselves through their frequent collusions with the Marxism and its by-products, through the formulas of a hysteric pacifism, of an absurd , of the side collusions with the , and with all social and racial dregs of society” (from the preface to “Nietzsche e il senso della vita” by R. Reininger, Volpe, Roma, without date).

    Is this the Evola of the Left Wing, dorogoij tovarish Dugin?


    Posted on September 28th, 2016 at 10:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    “I drape my member over a spatula when I urinate. I don’t want my hands touching something capable of raping a woman.” – Godfrey Elfwick


    Posted on September 30th, 2016 at 2:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#25) Says:

    […] The Sweden Attractor (Outside In) […]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 1:30 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment